Return to Transcripts main page
One World with Zain Asher
Global Markets Rise After Trump Tariffs Triggered Massive Sell-Off; Reciprocal Tariffs To Come Into Effect Tomorrow; Supreme Court Blocks Order To Rehire Fired Government Workers; Trump: U.S.-Iran Nuclear Talks Already Underway; Security Sources: Iran Targeting Teens In Sweden; South Sudan Seeks to Ease Immigrant Tensions With U.S.; RFK Jr. Calls For End Of Fluoride In Water; Aired 12:00-1:00p ET
Aired April 08, 2025 - 12:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[12:00:46]
BIANNA GOLODRYGA, CNN ANCHOR: And then they were green. The whole world is watching right now as the markets are higher for the first time in three or
four trading days. ONE WORLD continues right now.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. HAKEEM JEFFRIES (D-NY): Donald Trump and Republicans are actually crashing the economy in real time. You can't make this up.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: Trump administration says manufacturing jobs are on the way back to America, but experts say that could be a long, long time coming.
ZAIN ASHER, CNN ANCHOR: Also ahead, CNN investigates the exploitation of Swedish teams. Sources say the Iranian regime is using them to target
Israeli interests.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
(HOWLING)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: Talk about a wild story. The first of their kind how a group of scientists say they brought the dire wolf back from extinction.
ASHER: All right. Coming to you live from New York, I'm Zain Asher.
GOLODRYGA: And I'm Bianna Golodryga. You're watching the second hour of ONE WORLD.
ASHER: All right. Global stocks have been rallying after several days of sustained sell-offs triggered by Donald Trump's trade war.
GOLODRYGA: Let's take a look at the markets right now. Stocks open 13 points higher following a day of wild swings on Wall Street. Right now, the
Dow's up about two and a half percent, so is the S&P 500, as well as the NASDAQ.
And earlier, European and Asian markets had also rebounded. Europe still keeping those gains right now.
Now, it comes as White House officials tout potential tariff deals after the president has made it clear that he wants to bring many factoring back
to the United States, but many economists say that it's a policy that could be decades in the making.
And in the meantime, results in heavy job losses, inflation, and a sustained recession or worse without offering any details. Here's how the
president explained it Monday.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: It's the only chance we're going to have to reset the table on trade. And when we do, we're going to
come out unbelievably well. We're going to have a strong country economically again. And we're going to have those factories that are empty
all over the United States.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ASHER: And earlier today, the U.S. Treasury Secretary acknowledged a manufacturing boom in America isn't going to happen overnight.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SCOTT BESSENT, U.S. TREASURY SECRETARY: They're not going to snap their fingers, find a Greenfield site and build a factory. But the -- I am sure
that the planning has already started in boardrooms.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ASHER: CNN's Kevin Liptak joins us live now at the White House. So some positive news which is partly why markets are higher that is that the U.S.
is actively negotiating with the likes of India, with Israel, with Japan.
However, the big problem is, of course, China neither side is backing down. I mean, how -- where's the end -- where's the end game here, Kevin?
KEVIN LIPTAK, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE REPORTER: It's very unclear at this point. But I think when you listen to President Trump and you watch what
he's been saying, he does believe that China does want to strike some kind of trade deal with the United States, but in his words, they don't know how
to get started.
It's a very different type of rhetoric that you're hearing from Beijing. They have talked about this trade tit for tat tariff from the United States
as blackmail and said that they will fight to the end so you don't hear a lot of conciliation from Beijing or from the president, Xi Jinping.
And I think it does raise the question of whether as the president has been forewarning this enormous amount of tariff will go into effect this week on
China. Because remember, it's not just the reciprocal tariff that he announced. That is on top of the 20 percent tariffs that he's put in place
when it comes to fentanyl. He's applied this 34 percent tariff that he calls reciprocal tariff on Beijing.
And he is also threatening this 50 percent tariff in retaliation for what the Chinese have done in response. That would bring the total U.S. tariffs
on China to 104 percent which is an enormous amount. Obviously China, the world's second largest economy, an enormous trading partner for the United
States. The U.S. imports all kinds of things from China. So this could have potentially devastating effects not just in the U.S., but around the entire
world.
[12:05:02]
And as the president talks about these trade deals that he's hoping to negotiate with other countries, it's not at all clear that China is ready
to come to the negotiating table.
The president has been sort of on the hunt for a deal with China really since he took office, actually since his first term, when those trade
negotiations with China eventually sort of fell apart. The Chinese were nagging on a lot of the things that they had agreed to amid the COVID
pandemic.
And so I think in the president's view, he wants to get that whole sort of negotiation back on track. But when you listen to advisors, it's not clear
that China is really at the front of the line when it comes to these negotiations.
What the China's neighbors and East Asia do seem to be at the front of the line. We have heard that a Japanese delegation is coming to the U.S. to
start negotiations with Scott Bessent. The president yesterday speaking with the prime minister of Japan. He also spoke today with the acting
president of South Korea. And a delegation from Seoul is also on the way here to the White House to start trade talks there.
The question, of course, is whether that will lead to a relief from the tariffs that the president has threatened. It does not appear as if they
will strike a deal in time for the tariffs not to take effect at midnight tonight, but certainly the hopes of many around the world and many on Wall
Street is that if these trade deals can advance rapidly, that those tariffs will not remain in effect for very long.
But we haven't necessarily gotten any clarity on what exactly the timeline will be in terms of striking a deal, in terms of lifting the tariffs. And
that will be something that those delegations will have to work out with their counterparts as they work to come up with some kind of agreement.
ASHER: Kevin Liptak live for us there. Thank you.
GOLODRYGA: Let's take a look now at how Trump's tariffs will impact everyday American consumers. CNN's Vanessa Yurkevich is at a grocery store
in New York.
What are you hearing from shoppers now? And what are you seeing?
VANESSA YURKEVICH, CNN BUSINESS AND POLITICS CORRESPONDENT: Yes. Well, we know that more than 50 percent of Americans say that they're concerned
about tariffs and what that means for grocery prices according to a food group.
We're at Morton Williams in New York City. And one of the first places that Americans will likely see price increases is right here at the grocery
store, especially on perishable items, things that come across the border every single day, like bananas.
These bananas here, they come from Costa Rica. These over here come from Ecuador. And now, as of Saturday, there's a 10 percent tariff on those
countries.
Now, Morton Williams says that they haven't seen those price increases just yet, but they are bracing for those. And they expect that ultimately
they'll have to pass those down to the consumer. I'm going to take you to the seafood section over here because this is where we could see some of
these higher reciprocal tariffs that are set to go into effect at midnight.
In the shrimp section over here, they get shrimp from Indonesia and from Vietnam. And there are higher tariffs on those countries. You're talking
about a 32 percent tariff on Indonesia and a 46 percent tariff on Vietnam.
And then come over here to the salmon. This store gets their salmon from Norway. And there's a 15 percent tariff on any imports coming in from
Norway into the U.S. And the U.S. imports about $1 billion worth of salmon every single year.
Let's head out to the coffee section over here because coffee prices have actually been seeing really, really high market value rates. There's been
bad growing conditions in Central America and Africa that have pushed coffee prices up anyways.
And now, yes, maybe some businesses have been able to stockpile some of these non-perishable items like coffee. But we get a lot from countries
like Ethiopia and Central America, Brazil. These are countries that now have 10 percent tariffs in place.
Also worth noting that Americans' consumers overall, according to the Tax Foundation, can expect to see increases of about $2,100 per family, just in
2025, if all of these tariffs start to take effect.
But if you look around me, you can see some more perishable -- excuse me, non-perishable items, which means that maybe they -- companies that have
been able to stockpile these items. And we may not see the high prices on these types of items, cereals, coffee, tea, just yet, but it's those
perishable items, those fruits and vegetables that will likely see those higher prices in the coming days to coming weeks.
Bianna?
GOLODRYGA: All right. Vanessa Yurkevich, thank you so much. Well, wealthy businessmen are starting to turn on the U.S. president as his erratic trade
policies risk wiping billions out of their own portfolios. Billionaire investor, Ken Fisher, is the latest to speak out.
[12:10:06]
ASHER: Yes. He writes, what Trump unveiled Wednesday is stupid, it's wrong, arrogantly extreme, ignorant trade-wise and addressing a non-problem with
misguided tools. Yet, as near as I can tell it, it will fade and fail and the fear is bigger than the problem, which from here is bullish.
Joining us live now is Jennifer Hillman. She's a former general counsel for the office of the U.S. trade representative. Jennifer also served as one of
seven judges on the World Trade Organization Highness Court. Jennifer, thank you so much for being with us.
I think giving your background, my first question to you is really whether or not Donald Trump actually has the legal authority to impose these
tariffs. You think about the fact that Congress is normally in charge of these kinds of decisions, but Donald Trump has been declaring a national
emergency.
Obviously, there are going to be legal challenges. Some are being filed as I speak. Just give us your take on that.
JENNIFER HILLMAN, FORMER COUNSEL, U.S. TRADE REPRESENTATIVE: So my own view is, no, that the way in which the president has done this is not legal.
Again, as you rightly said, you know, it is the Congress that the Constitution gave the power to impose taxes or tariffs. So I do think it is
striking many Americans as, you know, how is this possible that we're seeing the largest tax increase since the 1940s that we're setting tariff
rates at a level that we haven't seen in the United States since 1909, the most regressive tax that will fall, the most heavily, on low and moderate
income people.
How can all of this be happening without the Congress? And to me, the answer to that is because it's not legal. The authority that the president
has used is something called the International Emergency Economic Powers Act or IEPA. And what that basically says is if the president declares a
national emergency, then this IEPA law gives him certain powers.
From my book, though, what it does not give him is the power to impose tariffs or duties. And part of the reason I say that is those words, tariff
or duty, appear nowhere in this statute.
There are plenty of other statutes in which the Congress has said, yes, president, you may have the authority to impose tariffs or duties under
these particular conditions, but in all of those delegations, they use the word tariff or they use the word duty, and they set up a process to figure
how much should the tariffs or the duties be.
And in this IEPA case, there's no language, no reference to tariffs or duties, and no process to figure out how much they should be. So this
really is the president just unilaterally deciding X, you know, each country gets this amount or that amount, more or less at whim.
GOLODRYGA: And we know Republican Senator Grassley has co-sponsored a legislation with a democratic senator that would give essentially the
Senate more oversight and at least heads up some 48 hours from the president in terms of when he would announce additional tariffs.
And I believe the latest reporting is that four more Republicans have joined on to that bill. We're also getting word that the U.S. Chamber of
Commerce may be considering filing a lawsuit against the president for these tariffs as well.
I'd like to get you to respond to what we've heard in terms of the testimony today from the U.S. Trade Representative, Jamieson Greer, who's
speaking before the Senate Finance Committee, because one headline really stands out to me, especially, I'm not sure if you heard the reporting from
Vanessa Yurkevich about the impact this could have on Americans, especially at the grocery store.
He said that costs from tariffs rarely get down to the consumer. Can you respond to that?
HILLMAN: Well, again, I think it's just absolutely incorrect. And I think all of the evidence is that that again, that the -- that the -- that the --
that again, this is a tax on Americans. It is an American importer that has to pay that tax right at the border or they can't get their goods, you
know, into the U.S.
And then those tariffs, at some level, do absolutely have to get passed on to someone. And again, I think you saw this exactly happen in the last
Trump administration where the tariffs were more limited. They were only really largely on China and then on certain steel and aluminum products.
But there is no question study after study after study looked at what was the impact of those tariffs.
And it was looking at a couple of things. One, did they do something about creating more jobs, more economic activity, more economic growth in the
United States? And again, all of the studies said that on balance, the answer to that was no. So that while they might have created some jobs in
the steel or aluminum sectors that were very protected, they came at the cost of losing jobs in many of the downstream sectors.
Did they create more economic growth or more productivity? The answer again, no. And at the end of the day, the American taxpayers had to spend
billions of dollars bailing out the farmers who lost their markets for exports because of the retaliation.
[12:15:15]
And I think already you are starting to see that exact pattern play out here. You've already seen job layoffs at Stellantis, at Whirlpool, at
Cleveland-Cliffs, a huge, you know, steelmaking company already job losses.
And again, you're already starting to see some real concern about this, again, among consumers, among buyers, among everyone else about the price
increases that they're expecting to come.
ASHER: Jennifer Hillman, live for us there. Thank you so much.
GOLODRYGA: And we have a breaking story to tell you about. Those federal workers fired by the Trump administration and Elon Musk's DOGE efforts, the
Supreme Court has blocked a ruling by a lower court judge that ordered the administration to continue to pay 16,000 fired probationary workers.
CNN chief Supreme Court analyst Joan Biskupic joins us now live in Washington. Is this just a procedural decision by the Supreme Court here?
The White House, obviously, will view this as a win, but walk us through the details of this ruling.
JOAN BISKUPIC, CNN CHIEF SUPREME COURT ANALYST: Sure. This is a win for the Trump administration to be sure, but it is a narrow one.
Right now, we have several legal challenges to Donald Trump's executive orders and initiatives since he came to office on January 20th, reaching
the Supreme Court. In this case, as you rightly said, involved his efforts to wide scale efforts to downsize the federal government. This involved a
group of probationary federal employees, about 16,000 who had been let go.
And the question was, could they remain on the payroll while the litigation over the merits of that downsizing continued? A federal judge on the West
Coast had said that, yes, they should remain on the payroll while this goes on, but the Trump administration appealed to the Supreme Court and the
Supreme Court today blocked that lower court judge's orders, order that would have allowed them to remain on the payroll during the time of the
litigation.
It was -- it was a procedural ruling to be sure, just because it we have not had the merits of this downsizing tested yet, but it makes a difference
to these employees, whether they're going to be paid while they challenge their firing.
Only two justices publicly dissented to liberals Justice Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson.
Now, this doesn't affect all the other cases percolating out there right now on the downsizing by Elon Musk and DOGE and the Trump administration
throughout the government. But this is one case where, as I said, the 16,000 workers would be affected. And this comes on the heels of last
night's decision that was a little bit more substantive for the Trump administration, allowing him to use the Alien Enemies Act to deport
Venezuelan nationals right now to prison in El Salvador.
But the court did say, in that case, that there should be some notice to potential deportees and ability for them to challenge them.
But overall, that one, what did favor the Trump administration? So lots of these cases come in the Supreme Court. We're starting to see more of the
decisions going the way of the Trump administration. But stay tuned because there will be several more even within upcoming days.
So two at least short-term wins for the White House. Joan Biskupic, thank you so much.
BISKUPIC: Thank you.
GOLODRYGA: And still to come for us, Donald Trump is seeking a diplomatic deal on Iran's nuclear program. The U.S. and Iran are set for talks this
Saturday. We'll give you a look at what to expect. That's next.
ASHER: Also, accusations Iran is targeting teenagers in Sweden using gang violence. A CNN investigation looks at why.
Plus --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Secretary instantly reached out to start talking about issues that he is so passionate about. And number one on that list was
fluoride.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: Utah plans to ban the addition of fluoride to its water supply and America's top health official wants every state to follow suit. We'll
tell you what dentists have to say later this hour.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[12:20:13]
ASHER: Military parades have been a regular fixture over the years for dictators. Now, there's rumors the White House is discussing throwing a
similar spectacle in Washington to commemorate the Army's 250th anniversary.
The proposed date of June 14th also happens to be Donald Trump's 79th birthday. The president previously floated staging a military-style parade
during his first time in office, but called it off because of cost concerns.
And we are hearing that White House Middle East envoy, Steve Witkoff, will lead the U.S. side in nuclear talks with Iran. The Iranian foreign minister
said earlier today, indirect high-level discussions will take place in Oman this Saturday.
GOLODRYGA: Now it comes a day after Donald Trump offered a different version saying that direct talks with Tehran were already underway.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: I think if the talks aren't successful with Iran, I think Iran is going to be in great danger. And I hate to say it. Great danger because
they can't have a nuclear weapon.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ASHER: CNN's Alex Marquardt is standing by for us in Washington. Obviously worth noting that Donald Trump actually withdrew from the 2015 nuclear deal
that was negotiated by Barack Obama.
Just in terms of what the president said there, this idea that we are dealing with Iran directly and maybe a deal is going to be made. But if the
talks are not successful with Iran, I think Iran is going to be in great danger. What did he mean by that, Alex?
ALEX MARQUARDT, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: Well, it was a veiled threat appearing to insinuate that if a deal were not struck, that
there would be some kind of military action.
But, Zain and Bianna, what was interesting there is that he was asked explicitly whether there could be military action and he didn't say yes.
Now, what Donald Trump's announced yesterday in terms of direct talks with Iran, that appeared to catch a lot of people off guard. That it didn't seem
like the U.S. or Iran were ready to announce that there were talks that were going to happen.
And now there's this back and forth about whether these are indirect talks or direct talks. And there is a big difference there.
And even as late as last night, and when I was speaking with Trump administration officials, they didn't know who would be going to these
talks in Oman on Saturday on behalf of the United States.
Today, we learned that it will indeed be Steve Witkoff, who is technically the Middle East envoy. But in adding Iran to his portfolio, he is really
adding a significant new file to that ever-expanding portfolio. He already had Gaza and Saudi normalization. He added the Russia and Ukraine talks.
And now he has this Iran nuclear file, which is extremely complex. So it's not clear who's going along with him. It is clear, of course, that Trump
has a lot of faith in him.
But we just saw a new op-ed in "The Washington Post" from Iran's foreign minister, who is really highlighting the fact that these will be indirect
talks. He says that they are approaching this earnestly, that they do want a deal. He talks about messages that have gone back and forth between the
Iranian regime and the Trump administration in order to get to some kind of deal.
[12:25:07]
But he is saying that these indirect talks are necessary because essentially there's a lack of trust. So what -- essentially what that would
mean is that there is the U.S. in one room, Iran in the other, and the Omanis, the mediators going back and forth between the two.
And this is why this is necessary according to the Iranian Foreign Minister. He writes in "The Washington Post," we face a significant wall of
mistrust and harbor serious doubts about the sincerity of intentions made worse by U.S. insistence on resuming the maximum pressure policy prior to
any diplomatic interaction. To move forward today, we need first to argue that there can be no military option, let alone a military solution."
So again, very notable that in the Oval Office yesterday, President Trump did not overtly threaten a military action against Iran. Even more
interesting that he did that in front of Prime Minister Netanyahu of Israel, who is certainly advocating that the U.S. join Israel in a military
strike against Iran because of how historically weak they are.
So what could a deal look like? Well, Netanyahu, for his part in the Oval Office, he talked about the Libya model, which would be a complete
dismantling of Iran's nuclear infrastructure. That's also what we've heard from some U.S. officials like Mike Waltz, the national security advisor.
But that does not appear to be what Donald Trump is going for. He has talked about just making sure that Iran can no longer or cannot have a
nuclear weapon.
How that is different from that deal that Obama struck 10 years ago is not clear. But Trump does want a deal right now rather than going towards any
kind of military action. That much does appear to be evident. We should note that something that the Iranian Foreign Minister pointed out is that
the U.S. intelligence community, right now, is saying that Iran is not going towards a nuclear weapon.
So the two sides do appear to want to strike a deal in these direct conversations, or perhaps they're indirect, that remains to be seen, are
getting started this weekend Saturday in Oman. Guys.
ASHER: All right. Alex -- Alexander Marquardt, thank you so much.
GOLODRYGA: Thanks, Alex.
Well, now to a CNN investigation into children and teenagers being targeted by gang violence in Sweden. Sources for the Secret Service there say Iran
is using vulnerable youngsters to target Israeli and Jewish sites like the Israeli Embassy in Stockholm.
GOLODRYGA: Let's also say that social media is a huge part of how gangs are targeting kids who are being coached to commit crimes ranging from
vandalism to murder.
Katie Polglase has our special report.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
KATIE POLGLASE, CNN INVESTIGATIVE PRODUCER (voice-over): In the dead of night, a 15-year-old left home. He was told to pick up a gun. He claims he
didn't know why. It was just a job.
POLGLASE: So this is the journey he would have taken in a taxi last May. He was getting instructions constantly on a secure messaging app, telling him
where to go, where to find the gun, what to do next. And his target is the Israeli Embassy in Stockholm.
POLGLASE (voice-over): He never makes it to his destination. Police stop him on route. But within 24 hours, another kid, this time, just 14 years
old, is dispatched. Different route, but the same target.
And this time, he gets there.
POLGLASE: He fired several shots near the embassy just behind me here and then ran in this direction, throwing the gun as he fled.
And as police caught up with him, they grabbed him, chucked him to the ground. And then they noticed he was still holding his phone, and someone
was calling him.
POLGLASE (voice-over): Who were these kids talking to and why were they directed to an Israeli target? Police say the attempted attacks were among
several last year targeting the Israeli Embassy in Stockholm.
Swedish intelligence told CNN, gangs acting on behalf of Iran were behind the plots, often using teenagers.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Two men accused of planning attacks on a Jewish restaurant in central Athens.
POLGLASE (voice-over): Beyond Sweden, the U.S. and its allies have warned of a rise in attacks on Jewish and Israeli sites in Europe in recent years.
Among the targets, a synagogue in Germany and a Jewish restaurant in Greece.
A CNN investigation can now reveal criminal networks are often using the most vulnerable in society to do it. But it wasn't Sweden that we found the
youngest suspects.
[12:30:04]
Rene Lobos knows these kids well. He himself used to be part of one of Sweden's most notorious and violent gangs. But he says they're even more
dangerous now.
RENE LOBOS, FORMER SWEDISH GANG MEMBER: If you don't have murder anybody, you are nothing. You are like equal like anybody else. So they need to do
it. They'll be taken seriously.
It's just being in a -- in a community, like they have their own community, like, they don't want to be alone.
POLGLASE (voice-over): A community, a sense of belonging. But it's also about the money.
LOBOS: Like I work to do here. You've got to work to do here. Who wants to take this one? You're going to get paid like this. So much money and they
take it. They take the job and they do it. And then they get paid.
POLGLASE: So the crime is like a service?
LOBOS: Yes.
POLGLASE (voice-over): And Iran is exploiting this desire for money, status, and respect. Swedish intelligence say, using the existing gangs as
middlemen to recruit kids. These middlemen are Rawa Majid and Ismail Abdo. Leaders of two rival Swedish gangs, Foxtrot and Rumba. Both are wanted by
Interpol.
Christopher Bohman spent 20 years investigating organized crime for Swedish police. And says the involvement of foreign state actors complicates the
picture.
CHRISTOPHER BOHMAN, FORMER SWEDISH POLICE: Now it's transformed to be globally. You have people sitting in other countries dictated the crime.
They are sending messages to Sweden, kill that one, kill that one and so on.
It's easier when you have the gangs, you have the people on one place. Now everything is global and everything is also digital.
POLGLASE (voice-over): Social media is indeed key. We found dozens of messages online offering kids money for violent crimes. Skull emojis
indicating a killing. Dollar emojis indicating payment. The gamification of gang warfare. But it has very real consequences.
In a cemetery on the outskirts of Stockholm, the latest children's graves. A stark reminder of the ultimate cost young people pay for gang violence,
groomed to service Swedish gangs.
Now authorities say exploited by Iran. It is vulnerable children at the heart of Iran's shadow war with Israel.
Katie Polglase, CNN, Stockholm Sweden.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
ASHER: The Iranian authorities declined to comment on our findings. They previously called the claims fake and propagandistic information pushed by
Israel.
GOLODRYGA: Well, still to come for us. The Supreme Court wades into the deportation debate. We'll tell you about a pair of big victories that just
handed to Donald Trump.
ASHER: And a war-torn African nation admits, it will do whatever it takes to ensure friendly relations with the U.S. even if the U.S. makes the
deportation mistake.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
LARRY MADOWO, CNN CORRESPONDENT: The main takeaway from this bizarre diplomatic dispute appears to be if the Trump administration decides that
you are from South Sudan, you will be deported there even if you're not from that country.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[12:35:48]
GOLODRYGA: What appears to diplomatic squabble between the U.S. and South Sudan has been resolved.
ASHER: Yes. South Sudan now says it will take a man being deported from the U.S., even though the man is actually originally from the Democratic
Republic of Congo. When it originally refused to accept the deportee, the U.S. threatened to revoke all visas for South Sudanese visitors,
endangering the status of thousands of people in the U.S.
Our Larry Madowo has a full explanation.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
MADOWO: Zain, Bianna, the main takeaway from this bizarre diplomatic dispute appears to be if the Trump administration decides that you are from
South Sudan, you will be deported there, even if you're not from that country
Officials in Juba say, the United States deported a Congolese citizen to South Sudan. And when they sent him back to the U.S., the State Department
reacted by canceling all existing visas for all South Sudanese people and blocking the issuance of any new visas.
So what happened is South Sudan did issue travel authorization for somebody named Nimeri Garang. But the US sent them a Congolese man named Makula
Kintu. They did not accept him.
On Monday, they were sticking to that story. Then on Tuesday, they said this.
APUK AYUEL MAYEN, SPOKESPERSON, SOUTH SUDAN FOREIGN MINISTRY: In the spirit of the existing friendly relations between South Sudan and the United
States, the government of the Republic of South Sudan has decided to grant Mr Makula Kintu permission to enter the country.
In light of this decision, the government has instructed the relevant authorities at Juba International Airport to facilitate Mr. Kintu's arrival
as early as tomorrow.
MADOWO: South Sudanese officials believe that the U.S. made a mistake and sent them the wrong man. Because the right Nimeri Garang is still scheduled
to be deported to Juba next month. But the U.S. has all the leverage here, cancelling visas hurts. And so South Sudan was forced to accept this man.
It's not clear if they will keep him in the country or they will deport him again to the Democratic Republic of Congo.
The hope for South Sudanese officials is that the U.S. will also quickly remove that block of all visas and reinstate existing visas.
But the bigger picture here, it exposes how weak, how helpless small countries are against the might of the United States.
Zain and Bianna.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
ASHER: Incredibly bizarre story. I mean I honestly have no words.
The Trump administration got a pair of big wins though on immigration Monday at the U.S. Supreme Court.
GOLODRYGA: Yes. The court says that the White House can use the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to justify its speedy deportation push. But it said
potential deportees should be given an advance notice and the opportunity to seek court review.
ASHER: And in another case, the court put aside a Monday deadline for the U.S. to bring back a Maryland man who was mistakenly deported to El
Salvador. It was just a temporary ruling though, as the court takes additional time to consider the case.
Even though it admits the man was deported by mistake, the Trump administration says he should stay in that El Salvadorian prison.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PAM BONDI, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL: It was an administrative error as to why he was deported. And he is a known gang member. I testified he was a gang
member. And we believe he should stay where he is.
[12:40:10]
SIMON SANDOVAL-MOSHENBERG, ATTORNEY REPRESENTING ABREGO GARCIA: I don't think there's anyone in this country who genuinely believes that if we
didn't just pick up the phone and make a good faith phone call, that we couldn't get him back was in a day or two.
They put Kristi Noem inside the walls of the prison and they got her back out, they can get him back out.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: All right. Time now for The Exchange and a deep dive into all of the immigration issues. Joining us is Raul Reyes. He is an attorney and a
CNN opinion writer with a focus on immigration role. Thank you so much for joining the show.
So as we noted, two pairs of wins for the White House today and yesterday. I'd like to put up a post, I don't know if we have it, but I'll read how
President Trump responded on social media to the report of the Supreme Court announcing that they can continue using the Aliens Enemy Act.
He said, the Supreme Court has upheld the rule of law in our nation by allowing the president, whoever that may be to be able to secure our
borders and protect our families and our country itself, a great day for justice in America.
Is that the ruling as interpreted by the president that you interpret from the Supreme Court, from what we saw yesterday?
RAUL REYES, CNN OPINION WRITER: Actually, I would say no. What the ruling from the Supreme Court that we got about the Alien Enemies Act, just to be
clear, they did not rule on whether it was proper or improper to use the Alien Enemies Act.
So they did not get to the case on its merits per se. What they did say was that for now, the government can continue, can resume deporting people
under the act. But, and this is a big qualifier, they must be given that opportunity to challenge their deportation, their removal. They must be
given some notice.
So in theory, we can say that it's a win for due process, but here's the deal in reality. There are thousands of people in detention across the
United States. The idea that they are all going to be able to access a lawyer, afford a lawyer, put together a case, a habeas corpus case
challenging their removal in maybe 24 or 48 hours, that's completely unrealistic.
So the reality that we will see play out until the court finally rules on the act itself is people will be harmed. People are getting due process in
name only, but it's -- it really will not work that way. We will see more cases of people, unfortunately, removed, who may be lawfully in the U.S. or
have a right to be here. And so I think the Trump administration can see this as a victory, but this case is far from over.
ASHER: Yes. I mean, just to double down on the case of Abrego Garcia, because we were getting mixed messages from members of the Trump
administration.
On the one hand, they're saying the fact that he was deported, I mean, this is a man who has been legally in the U.S. since 2019. The fact that he was
deported. We initially heard it was a clerical error.
Then Pam Bondi there was essentially saying that, no, no, no. Yes, it is a clerical error, but he is technically a member of MS-13, providing
obviously no evidence.
And then we also heard another excuse, which is that, well, now that he's in El Salvadorian custody, we can't really do anything about it. We have no
jurisdiction over El Salvador.
Just give us your take on all the sort of different varying excuses that we're hearing from the administration. Some of them sort of seem to
contradict each other.
On the one hand, it's an error --
REYES: Exactly.
ASHER: -- but on the other hand, he's a gang member. I mean, it doesn't even make sense. Obviously, as we played in a soundbite there, a member of
the administration can easily make a phone call to bring him back to the U.S.
REYES: Yes. The Trump administration, what they are doing here, they seem to be trying to muddy the waters around this case. But what we know of it
so far, it's very clear cut. A federal judge found that Mr. Abrego Garcia was wrongfully deported. That was upheld by an appeals court.
Now, what the Supreme Court has said, John Roberts -- it was only John Roberts. He just basically asked for a few more days to -- for some
breathing room until the court -- the Supreme Court rules on this case.
But here's the thing, you know, even two or three days, that could be -- could mean life or death for Mr. Abrego Garcia. He is in a brutal prison.
The U.S. does have resources to bring him back.
In fact, it is not uncommon in this -- in past administrations of both parties that the U.S. government brings people back here from all over the
world, who they may have removed an error. That's not unprecedented. It happens -- has happened for decades.
But what the Trump administration seems to be doing is pushing the narrative that because they say Mr. Abrego Garcia is a gang member, based
on no evidence that, therefore, he has no due process and deserves to remain in El Salvador potentially forever.
[12:45:06]
So the case as, at it -- at its heart, is very simple. And just to be clear, you know, standing up for due process and fighting due process is
not an endorsement of gang activity. And for the record, there is no substantial evidence that Mr. Abrego Garcia is a gang member.
ASHER: But it's very much, you know, whatever we say goes. If we say you're a gang member, then that's what you are. If we say that you are from South
Sudan, even when you are technically from the Congo, then you are from South Sudan.
REYES: Right.
ASHER: Just in very bizarre sort of immigration stories we are seeing right now.
Raul Reyes, thank you so much. We'll be right back with more --
REYES: Thank you.
ASHER: -- after the short break. Thank you.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
GOLODRYGA: America's top health official was in Utah on Monday to praise the state's decision to ban the addition of fluoride to its water supply
starting next month.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ROBERT F. KENNEDY, JR. U.S. HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES SECRETARY: The era of fluoridated toothpastes and mouthwashes, it makes no sense to have fluoride
in our water.
The evidence against fluoride is overwhelming. And I'm very, very proud of this state for being the first state to ban it. And I hope many more will
come.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ASHER: Robert F. Kennedy Jr. wants to expand that initiative nationwide by recommending it to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
GOLODRYGA: CNN medical correspondent Meg Tirrell joins us now.
So Robert F. Kennedy Jr. was alluding to substantial evidence suggesting the negative impact of fluoride. What is that evidence in research?
MEG TIRRELL, CNN MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, it really comes down to the old saying that the dose makes the poison of all the research that has been
circulating around this, including research that the Environmental Protection Agency Administrator, Lee Zeldin, said at that same event that
his organization was going to re-review.
It really looked at fluoride levels at much higher levels than we see that's recommended in U.S. water systems.
So in addition to directing the CDC to recommend fluoride come out of water systems, HHS has said that they are going to convene the preventive
services task force to look at the issue, and then EPA is also going to look at this as well.
And they pointed to this National Toxicology Program report that came out last summer that found, quote, moderate confidence in terms of evidence
that levels of 1.5 milligrams of fluoride per liter of water were, quote, associated with lower IQ in children.
[12:50:08]
Importantly, we should note that the recommended levels in U.S. water systems are less than half that, 0.7 milligrams per liter of water. And at
those levels, the report found more studies are needed to fully understand the effects of lower exposure.
And so, guys, this has been an ongoing controversy. But typically, it's been a local decision about whether to add fluoride to community water
systems. Of course, the CDC has called this one of the greatest public health achievements of the last century for reducing cavities.
Salt Lake County in Utah, where they made this announcement, actually voted to include fluoride in their water systems. And their public health
department told us they still support that as a safe, proven, and efficient way to improve oral health community-wide, regardless of income level or
access to regular dental care.
And the concern that a lot of folks have is that at these lower levels, while no evidence has shown any harm, there is a risk. If you take it out
of water supplies, you're going to see an impact on cavities, particularly in lower-income families who may not be able to afford dental care or
fluoride products.
Guys?
GOLODRYGA: All right. Meg Tirrell, thank you.
ASHER: All right. Still to come. Jurassic bark. Well, that was a good one written there, but not quite. Scientists say they have managed to bring
back to life a long extinct species of wolf.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
(HOWLING)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ASHER: So those howls may be small, but the journey for these little wolf cubs has been huge. In fact, it's been 12 and a half thousand years in the
making. A U.S.-based biotech company is hailing the world's first de- extincted animal, saying it has all but resurrected the long extinct dire wolf. Incredible.
GOLODRYGA: It is. And the animals which are a hybrid species were created by taking DNA from fossils that are tens of thousands of years old and
combining them with the genes of a gray wolf, the dire wolf's closest living relative.
ASHER: The company behind the breakthrough says humans have a duty to protect nature and other species.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DAN FLORES, COLOSSAL CONSERVATION ADVISORY BOARD MEMBER: We're a part of the evolutionary stream of the planet. We're kin to every other species out
there. And so because we have the ability to shape the world, I think we have a responsibility to correct our mistakes from the past.
[12:55:13]
MATT JAMES, CHIEF ANIMAL, COLOSSAL BIOSCIENCES: What we do today is, I think, what the hope for the future is for biodiversity and for nature.
Instead of be on the ground floor of creating a tool that will be the solution for our biodiversity crisis, is the most motivating thought that I
could ever have.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: Now, Colossal Biosciences says that it is also working to de- extinct the mammoth, the dodo, and the Tasmanian tiger.
ASHER: My goodness.
GOLODRYGA: That is incredible. How cute they are.
ASHER: Very "Game of Thrones" though.
GOLODRYGA: You know what? Kudos to our show and our producers for not putting "Game of Thrones" on, because I think every other program --
ASHER: Everyone did. Yes.
GOLODRYGA: -- associated with it. Yes. So not us, folks.
That does it for ONE WORLD. I'm Bianna Golodryga.
ASHER: I'm Zain Asher. Appreciate you watching. "AMANPOUR" is up next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
END
